Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Citizen Photographers v. The Police? 407

Several hundred readers commented on yesterday's Slashdot post about citizens arrested for photographing police either in public or in the photographer's own property. Read on for some of the comments which defined the conversation in today's Backslash summary.
Anthony Boyd is one of the readers whose inclination to believe the police is mitigated by the facts as reported in the case of Philadelphia's Neftaly Cruz:

"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."

OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...

"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw."

"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down...

Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?

To tomstdenis's argument that, even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things," reader alienmole points out a crucial difference:

The difference is that police have powers which ordinary citizens don't have, so when police do bad things, it can have severe consequences. Quite often, they're not held accountable for that, which again results from an abuse of power. That's what this is all about: accountability for the actions of public servants, particularly those with extraordinary powers. Cops in general are not the enemy, but bad cops are certainly an enemy which needs to be guarded against and eradicated whenever possible.

Reader BINC wants to know whether Pennsylvania actually has a law which would illegalize Neftaly Cruz's cellphone photo of police in the act of arresting a suspect. He writes

This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beyond photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !!

General defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury — provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy — but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.

Many readers linked to online information and commentary on the recognized rights of photographers (at least in the U.S.). Reader pen was one of several to point to Bert Krages' site:

Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.

Reader hacker linked to an informative PDF and offers a useful summary:

Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public — a mall, office-building lobby, etc. — permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).

In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.

Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.

Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.

Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.

PsychosisC contributed a link to a short video called " BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," writing "I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them."

Rights on paper aside, many readers posted horror stories of arrest-happy police; leereyno pointed to one that made the news in the Mid-Atlantic region, writing

[T]here does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the Gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. ... A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing" ..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.

I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.

[...]

In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the U.S. are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.

According to reader rs79, this sort of thing on wouldn't happen north of the border; rs79 writes "I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care." To this, RajivSLK says

It's not so rosy up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of mandatory searches on all buses heading downtown. They can get away with this because, on Canada Day, the bus is used mostly by young people going to clubs. I objected to being searched thinking that I would simply not be allowed back on the bus. Instead, to my complete surprise, the officer began to become very verbally abusive and I was arrested for "Drunk and Disorderly Conduct."

No breathalizer, no sobriety test, nothing. 100% solely based upon the officers "observation." I was processed and thrown into a dirty cement holding cell that lacked even toilet paper let alone a bed. As it stands, the Victoria police can arrest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no sobriety test.

I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.

ZorbaTHut suggests the sort of technological answer that RajivSLK's looking for, which might remind Neal Stephenson fans of the "gargoyles" in Snowcrash.

I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.

Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"


Many thanks to the readers (especially those quoted above) whose comments informed this discussion.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Citizen Photographers v. The Police?

Comments Filter:
  • by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:23PM (#15819618) Homepage Journal
    I've had a couple [utah.edu] of incidents [utah.edu] as well with police and now city run facilities where people want to restrict photography. It's getting really discouraging for folks that enjoy photography and all anyone has to do is invoke the spectre of "National Security".

  • by Andy Gardner ( 850877 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:34PM (#15819721)
    Where were the repercussions for the offending officer though?

    The simple fact is the police can arrest you at anytime if they don't like what your doing, under the guise of being drunk/abusive/offensive etc. It's more hassle than its worth to try and make a complaint and even then it's unlikely any action will be taken (your word against theirs) also police are just people and 'people make mistakes'. So what happens is as a citizen do you stand up and have the inconvinience of spending the night in a cell? no, it ends up being far easier to just do as they say...

  • by MagicMike ( 7992 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:38PM (#15819748) Homepage

    Did you guys read that? You should:

    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm [mt.gov]

    "It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority."

    What???

    So, if the police are acting illegally by not having a warrant to search my house and asking to search it anyway, I'm obstructing and this law makes it legal?

    Ohhh - but they were acting under official authority. That's so comforting.
  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:46PM (#15819819) Homepage Journal
    the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.

    Some sort? They should be subjected to dismissal and incarceration.

    This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about.

    What this does represent is that for the first time, middle-class white America is subjected to the same kinds of abuses that poor and/or minority comminunities have been for decades.

    That's what's new here. That's what's different.

    LK
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:46PM (#15819820)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:51PM (#15819885)
    I feel that your best defense in these situations is to call 911, if possible. No, it won't help you at that immediate point in time, but now there is a recording of the conversation you had with the law enforcement agent: Police, Sheriff, FBI, etc.

    In this case, if the person called 911, there would be a recording where you could hear them being dragged off the porch and hear the gate being opened and closed. Proof that the person was not on public property as claimed. If someone is attempting a warrantless search, you can have it on record that you aren't giving them permission to enter the premesis, and have a recording of any threats that they make to you to force their way in.

    Another benefit is the recording is now stored off-site. With a video camera, regular camera or phone if they take it, you lost your evidence. If you can get that data off-site, they can't take it from you without a lot more work. (Maybe the 911 tape disappears, but without the FBI or NSA, AT&T isn't going to delete the record of the phone call to 911.)

    Now, I don't think that all cops are bad. In fact, I have nothing bad to say about any of my experiences with law enforcement. However, I am white and live in a low crime area - the last "major" arrest in my town was over 10 years ago. So my experience may be different than yours.

    Perhaps the best advice I can give is to think about the best thing to do if you were ever in these situations. Everyone does it for RPG games, just think about real life in those same terms.

    FBI wants to search my house?

    My wife calls 911 and tells them armed men are trying to get past me to enter the house without my permission. Didn't lie. Just didn't mention that they are federal agents. I'm sure the Sheriff will show up pretty fast with a call like that. Now, I have an officer that will hopefully be on my side in the matter. If not, I have pissed them off, but am no worse off. I also have a record that I didn't give them permission to enter. Then my wife can start calling the neighbors to come over and call the TV station, and I have made a big enough scene to (hopefully) be protected. I don't know if that is the best thing I can do, but at least I have thought about it enough to have a plan. In this case? Immediately send the photo to everyone in your address book. They can get the phone, but not the data. (It may cost you $0.50 or something, but probably worth it.)
  • by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Monday July 31, 2006 @03:52PM (#15819893) Homepage Journal
    I think the big deal here is NOT that big brother had a bunch of cameras. Our own government has a lot of cameras, and others do too. Big deal. The problem as I see it is that Winston Smith and his fellows didn't have their own cameras. Only Big Brother had cameras.

    When we can't take pictures of our police and our government, and document either the criminal activities or just as importantly the good things that police do, then it's something to worry about.

    Citizens, point your cameras at the government.
  • by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @04:00PM (#15819964)

    This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

    Bullshit. You don't read sites like photo.net, where stories of police harassment and intimidation are the norm, not the exception, and many photographers have stopped trying to photograph anything they think they might get in the slightest trouble over.

    • Photography student is detained and his IDs 'reviewed' after taking night-time photos of a firehouse [photo.net].
    • Man was physically intimidated and threatened by private security and police after photographing, from public property, a commercial chemical plant.
    • Young photojournalism student in Provincetown is roughed up by Provincetown police after shooting some pictures of cops beating a bunch of drunks.
    • MBTA has never permitted photography anywhere on its property, and is well known for its officers harassing photographers. NYC just instituted a no-photography rule in the last year or two.
    • Vacationers at the Golden Gate Bridge have had film confiscated for taking pictures of the bridge. When they said they were just tourists, they were told to buy a postcard from the vendor nearby. Security risk, or helping the postcard sellers?
    • Photograhpers are often harassed for taking pictures of public buildings, bridges, reservoirs, dams, etc. It has been a prevalent experience that anyone with a camera taking a picture of some sort of infrastructure is deemed a potential terrorist, or terrorism is trotted out as an excuse (see the Golden Gate postcard fiasco.)
    • Parents are reported to police by film development labs for taking pictures of their babies playing in the bath and have been threatened with having their children removed from them.

    Those are just the few examples that immediately come to mind.

    Try this search on for size [google.com]. Add on fun keywords like "harassment","arrested", "questioned", etc.

    People are rotuinely roughened up, threatened with arrest or being "reported" to the FBI, arrested and detained then released before the charge-or-release 24 hours are up, lied to about their rights, what the law is, or what they are criminally liable for, had film/cards confiscated, their IDs demanded (would it scare you more if I called them "papers"?), and so on. These days just about anything gets you on various watch lists and that means even more fun.

    We live in a country where you can be arrested for taking a picture of a bridge on vacation and get harassed trying to board a flight home because you were placed on a "watch" or "no fly" list. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee- we're fast headed the way of fascist and communist countries.

  • by transporter_ii ( 986545 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @04:13PM (#15820073) Homepage
    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,728 [villagevoice.com] Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game. But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges. Transporter_ii
  • by jt418-93 ( 450715 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @04:17PM (#15820102)
    when the 2nd revolution comes, there will be a few changes.
    1) police will face 2x the punishment a citizen does for every crime. police get 0 tolerence for bending the rules. they enforce the law by example as much as anything else.
    2) the basic unit of society is the citizen. goverment exists to serve that citizen. goverment has no rights to tell a citizen what to do with his / her body. you can take what you want, you can kill yourself, sell yourself, whatever. so long as you do not infringe on another citizen.
    3) the highest crime shall be corruption / incompetence in a public servant. this will be punishable by death in a painfull and public mannor so as to be a deterrant. if you want to serve the citizens, then serve.

    within 10 years, the idea of gov corruption, and lawbreaking would be a faint idea.

    it can't happen soon enough. the current gov is corrupt and needs to be formatted.

  • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @04:33PM (#15820270)
    Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).

    What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.


    I'm the IT guy in a small city police department. Trust me on this police don't want to share data with anyone and what data the police collects you can pay $10 for copy of the report. Why don't police want to share data? Because they collect "intel" data and some of the people in there may have done nothing wrong. Take gangs. If a gang member is arrested, they like to try to link together gang members. Well, just because you are a gang member or linked to a gang member doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong. I've been amazed at how little the police can legally share with each other. There are both state and federal laws limiting the "intel" information. I think the rule of thumb is that you can generally share your data among your department, but you generally can't share intel information farther than that. If you wand some potentially scary stuff, look up N-DEx
    http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm? fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=908&issue_id=62 006 [policechiefmagazine.org] . NIBRS is about all the feds care about and it's all just crime stats.

    There is a policeman that I work with. I tell him routinely, that I think that the feds should be the final resting place for every report that they write and everything should be stored by them. In car dash cameras should be attached to police reports and submitted up to the Feds and stored both to cover the individual policeman's butt, and incase anyone else in the nation wanted to compare video. I'd want that one automated though. Heck, there isn't even a "national" standard for finger prints. Each state has its own system and doesn't look outside of its system.

    It's amazing how well the police do their jobs with the tools that they have.

    The end total of the IT that I'd like to give to my cops would be a virtual police state. I really drooled over the traffic cameras that London could afford. We'd never be able to spend like that though. Heck, there was an article on /. a few days ago about a camera searching every passing car and doing NCIC lookups to see if there were any hits. I think that every city should have one of those systems for each of their major transportation hubs. Humans can't catch much, but with a system like that, if an auto is in the system as stolen, then a police person can atleast be alerted and stop the car that he would have otherwise missed.

    That device was something like $25-$30K. For my department to afford it, we'd need a grant to cover it. We could purchase something around $4-$5K, but not something for $25-30K. There are alot of neat police tools that I'd like our department to have access to, but each one is priced around $25-30K and we don't have that much to spend.

    We looked last year and replacing our analog cameras and VCRs to the digital cameras with lowlight and storing them on 4 GB flash cards and wirelessly transmit. We were going to setup 5 cars with plans of upgrading our entire fleet of 25 units, but it was going to cost about $65K for the inital 5 cars and setting up the backbone system. The night vision on that system was sweet. I wish our department had it. One other nice feature was that it was always rec
  • by Tony ( 765 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @04:38PM (#15820327) Journal
    All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.

    This may be all you see. I've noticed a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye on this (and the last) administration.

    If the government is only trying to protect us, why are they so quick to step outside the bounds of legality to accomplish its goals? Why have they often resorted to lies and misdirection to accomplish their goals? Why have they so readily blocked investigations that might clear up their honor?

    My Dad used to tell me, "If they act untrustworthy, they probably are untrustworthy." Respect and trust are to be earned, not demanded, nor due. This current administration has destroyed the little bit of trust and respect I had after the *last* administration.

    The government that demands transparency from its citizens, but is in turn completely opaque, is hiding something dishonorable. *That* is why some of us make a big deal about seemingly insignificant details. After all, most of us realize it takes a lot of pixels to make a picture.

    Personally, I'm glad we're making a big deal about this. Part of it is education. There are too many people who think police have the right to infringe on *your* right with no just cause. Too many people are unaware that we as citizens *have* many rights.

    And finally, it's always nice to see a bully get his come-uppance. I really hope that fucker gets nailed to the wall. I mean, literally. I've got a hammer they could use.
  • by Incongruity ( 70416 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @05:32PM (#15820763)
    When I stated he most likely thought he was in the right, I'm saying that the cop most likely actually thought that what the guy was doing happened to be illegal and for CID to find the charge/a charge to make it stick. What most likely happened is CID looked through their Lexis Nexis criminal code and couldn't find any mention of public citizen's taking police officer's photos being against the law.

    I appreciate your expanded explanation for your comment, but I still think it's missing the seriousness of what happened -- when someone doesn't do their job right, there's cause for concern. When their job includes actions that directly restrict one's liberties (arrest even if charges are never filed certainly falls into that category), then there's cause for serious concern. Correct me if I'm wrong, but arrests stay on your record, regardless of what happens after that. Moreover, you'll always have to answer that you have been arrested on job applications etc., doing otherwise could bring serious legal consequences but doing so may well exclude you from opportunity. Pulling back, no matter if one genuinely thinks they're doing their job correctly, if they make a serious error in judgement, they need to be held accountable -- and they would in many professions. I see no reason why the case of a police officer is any different.
  • by necrogram ( 675897 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @05:40PM (#15820814)
    Though I am a civilian, I've been around and part of the "the system" for years, and most cops I know are honest people just wanting to do some good. There are one or two that need to retire, wash out, whatever, but thats anywhere. Being around them, i see how that side of it works, what the procedures are, etc; and i'm confidant in those processes. I've seen officers walk out of court cleared of something, onlky to turn around and be terminated on the spot for policy violations.
  • by Bartmoss ( 16109 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @05:45PM (#15820858) Homepage Journal
    "Distrust authority." It has never been more true, or more necessary. History is repeating itself. We've had a couple decades of relative peace, quiet, and freedom; it's now time for the next wave of faschism. people forget too quickly, and they take too much shit. I'll blog the revolution when it comes.
  • by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Monday July 31, 2006 @06:24PM (#15821138) Journal
    True. In Philly, they won't return all your bail money [2600.com] even if the judge finds the charges ridiculous. This guy is out 1 week of jail and $750, for no good reason.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31, 2006 @06:37PM (#15821211)
    All governments start by "protecting the people".

    All governments end up corrupt and twisted to serve those in power.

    Maybe government (this special "right" to employ coercion as a means to an end) wasn't the solution after all?
  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) * on Monday July 31, 2006 @06:54PM (#15821302) Journal
    Here's an idea: We should organize a "Police Photography Day." On this day, the participants would go around legally taking photographs of police officers. This would be done in the most polite manner possible, and would be photos of officers doing their everyday activities. There could be a set of documents participants would carry, explaining the idea of "Police Photography Day" to concerned officers, and explaining that such photographs aren't illegal.

    Seriously, a big problem seems to be that officers (and many citizens) simply don't realize that citizens taking photos of them in public places (or from their own property) is completely legal. Organizing a day like this could help raise awareness about that.
  • by splatter ( 39844 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @07:59PM (#15821662)
    For people to read and hopefully gain another prospective & protect yourself.

    At 1 am on the morning of September, 2005, I was awoke by a persistent knock on the door. I opened the door to find three officers asking me about a smell in the building, and asked me to enter the apartment. I told them I did not smell anything, and refused to allow them entry into the apartment. The main officer continued to ask me about the smell, and if he could come in, and I refused by telling him "no you may not come in". At some point in the conversation my fiancé came into the room and the officer ask if she was ok.

    He again asked me if he could come in which I said no one final time and attempted to close the door. At that point the office had his foot inside the door jam to prevent the door from closing. I again attempted to close the door by leaning on the door. The officer pushed the door back throwing me back while stating that I had committed battery against an officer by hitting him with the door and proceeded to hit me about the right side of my face, while attempting to cuff me. I struggled with him only mildly trying to understand why I was being charged, and never threw a punch or was violent in any way against the police. He continued to hit me after being thrown to the ground and being completely cuffed.

    I was then taken out to the second floor stairs were the officer hit me multiple more times on the right side of my face. I was completely hand cuffed at that point and was not able to resist. I screamed out multiple times "stop hitting me, stop hitting me".

    The officer then grabbed me by my cuffs and lead me to the car were I was placed in the back seat. The officer returned a few minuets later with my marijuana pipe asking me if this was why I did not let him in. He then stated "I can't wait to get you to the station and kick your ass." In front of the transporting officer in this case. The transporting officer had no other involvement in this incident he pulled up on the scene as I was being taken out, and was polite and professional in his duties. I was seen in Ward D at the local hospital and released without medical aid to the county jail.

    I was seen and treated for my eye and a concussion in the jail by nurses station within the jail the next morning after vomiting twice in the holding cell over night, and complaining of pain. I was given pain relief and given a call back and was told to see some one outside when I got out. I was released on bail the next day.

    I returned to the Emergency room twice and was diagnosed and treated for an Ocular Floor Fracture on the right side of my face. I still suffer from numbness on the right side of my face under and around my eye. I had a follow up appointment a few months later to determine if I need surgery to correct orbital sink or any other complications that can occur due to my ocular floor fracture.

    I am not known here by many, but the few that do can attest that I am a college grad, and navy war vet. I have not been in a fight since high school and am not violent by anymeans. I never resisted hit or otherwise attempted to hurt the officer in question.

    I was charged with two felonys and two misdomenors neither deserved, & foolishly listened to my lawyers advice & took the states offer of a PTI which nullified any possibility of a civil suit. I live in a small beach town, and see the officer on a weekly basis, and fear him returning to my house so can not file a IAS investigation.

    By carefull everyone because they are NOT there to protect you despite what it says on the patrol car.

    DP

  • Re:What the hell? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crhylove ( 205956 ) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Monday July 31, 2006 @08:32PM (#15821854) Homepage Journal
    Spoken like a true never been to American. Most of the people I know in southern California, from the kid on the street to the republican/christian business owner look at the police here as a street gang with public funding. I can't recall the last time a bill to up the funding was approved in California. Nobody wants more of the same from the "serve and protect" department, because they've become almost unilaterally the "harrass and molest" department.

    Consider the following facts:
    Nearly half the population of the US resides in California.
    90% of Californians live in Southern California.
    California has roundly supported every bill to legalize marijuana and limit the penalties for DUI (drunk driving).
    Weed is still illegal, and getting a DUI still costs over $10,000.

    At least in California, the majority opinion seems to be we no longer live in a democracy, and our current government merely serves the special interests that pay them cash directly in the form of campaign contributions and other kick backs. I'd venture to say the word on the street across the nation doesn't deviate too far from that.

    They haven't singled out an ethnicity and made them wear yellow badges yet, but other than that there are PLENTY of examples of fascism and anti-constitutional activity going on in this country. Very few of us are still under an illusion that anything else is the case. I'd be saying this out loud on a street corner with millions of others, if they weren't going to round us all up and put us in a "free speach zone" far away from public view, and likely an unhealthy environment with some local pollutants.

    It's really too bad, too, because Franklin and Jefferson in particular were very bright men who worked very dilligently to secure our on-going freedoms and yet still failed.

    rhY
  • I am a cop. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mad-cat ( 134809 ) on Monday July 31, 2006 @10:02PM (#15822248) Homepage
    I'm reading through some of these things and am appalled to see things my proverbial brothers are doing. This should not stand, and officers who are truly guilty of such offenses should be punished with the maximum penalty under US chapter 18 for violation of civil rights.

    I have never done anything on duty or while as an off duty representative of the state that I wouldn't want photographed, recorded, or otherwise witnessed. I am proud to protect and serve, not to bully and harass. In fact, there are times that things have happened when I wish I had a camera or tape recorder to back me up on what I had to say. I've arrested people who try to bang their faces against the side of my patrol car in order to cause bleeding and claim that I beat them up. Fortunately, I had a civilian witness in the case to back me up on what I said.

    While some cops lie, remember that criminals lie too. There are cops who do bad things who should be soundly punished, but there are people who will go out of their way to ruin a cop because they don't like them, and they should be punished as well.

    Maybe it's because I'm a small town cop, but with the exception of the "bad" part of town I feel like a welcome presence everywhere I go. If I can't hold my head up high and know that people see me as a friend and protector, not a tyrant, I couldn't do my job.
  • Re:patriot act (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eyeb1 ( 522766 ) on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @02:00AM (#15823173)
    please don't confuse communism .. which really has nothing to do with politricks .. and fascism

    but which has everything to do with economics .. communism is an economic model .. not a political model

    it apples and oranges ..

    just ask the people in Chile .. who had elected the world first democratically elected communist government ..

    which was then promptly overthrown by a United States backed and orchestrated military Coup d'État ..lead by Augusto Pinochet .. on September 11, 1973

    http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html [au.com]

    29 years to the day of September 11, 2001

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A716591 [bbc.co.uk]

    http://www.iisg.nl/collections/chile/ [www.iisg.nl]

    the ruling class could not leave something like democratic communism laying around to work it'self out .. it would put a big hole in the fascist/capitalist ideology ..
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday August 01, 2006 @09:56AM (#15824540)
    Backtalk a cop like that in most of the South and you'll be lucky not to get a nightstick upside your head and a night in jail for your trouble. Police corruption here is such old news that's it's simply a given. Most of the cops I've known in my life were little more than criminals with a license (or, rather, badge) to steal.

    In fact, or the two dozen or so cops I've known (some in my hometown, some fraternity brothers from college) not a single one of them WASN'T corrupt in at least some way. Hell, some of them learned stuff like "beat the shit out of any suspect who runs from you" in the *police academy*.

    And it's been a given my whole life that the police will "take care" of tickets, minor citations, etc. "gifts" (I suspect this applied to bigger stuff too, providing the gifts were also much bigger). My first memory of the cops was them showing up to my father's business and walking out with armfuls of free food in exchange for taking care of some of his employee's traffic tickets.

    And don't even get me started on the racial element. Just pray that if you do get arrested, the arresting cop is the same color as you or you WILL get a beating (used to apply only if you were black, now it works the other way too).

    -Eric

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...